THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 209151. September 23, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROY SAYCON y REPOLLO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 23, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 209151 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. ROY SAYCON y REPOLLO, accused-appellant). — Assailed in this ordinary appeal is the Decision 1 dated June 24, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00809, which affirmed the Joint Judgment 2 dated October 26, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental, Dumaguete City, Branch 30 in Criminal Case Nos. 17605 and 17607 finding Roy Saycon y Repollo (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, respectively.
The Facts
This case stemmed from two Informations filed before the RTC, charging accused-appellant-appellant with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, the accusatory portion of each of the Information 3 reads:
In Criminal Case No. 17605:
That on or about the 3rd day of June, 2005, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused-appellant, not being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell and deliver to an NBI poseur-buyer two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing the aggregate weight of 0.10 gram of white crystalline substance, of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called shabu, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
In Criminal Case No. 17607:
That on or about the 3rd day of June, 2005, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused-appellant, not being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, possess and keep four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing the aggregate weight of 0.27 gram of white crystalline substance, of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called shabu, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. 4
Version of the Prosecution
According to the prosecution, at around 2:00 p.m. of June 3, 2005, an organic personnel of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)-Dumaguete City District Office, together with other NBI and police operatives, were at the public market area of Barangay Looc, Dumaguete City to conduct a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. 5
Special Investigator (SI) Chester Aldwin Celon (SI Celon) and SI Arnaldo Fineza (SI Fineza) were designated as the poseur-buyers, and to be accompanied by their informant, one Walter Adarna (Adarna), while Agent Miguel Dungog prepared the marked buy-bust money. 6 Thereafter, SI Celon, SI Fineza and Adarna proceeded to the house of the accused-appellant to conduct the buy-bust operation. 7 After arriving at the house of accused-appellant and confirming the purchase of shabu, SI Fineza handed the marked buy-bust money, while accused-appellant in turn handed two sachets of shabu to Adarna. 8 Immediately thereafter, SI Fineza and SI Celon announced their authority and arrested the accused-appellant. 9 SI Celon informed accused-appellant of the nature of his arrest and of his constitutional rights. SI Fineza conducted a search of the accused-appellant and recovered the marked money. 10 SI Celon made markings on the two sachets of shabu that were bought from accused-appellant. Sensing that the area was beginning to be hostile to the group, SI Fineza and SI Celon, together with the back-up team, decided to bring accused-appellant together with the seized and recovered items to the NBI Office. 11
While on the way to the NBI Office, SI Celon noticed that accused-appellant was pulling something from his shorts and saw a string dangling from it. SI Celon pulled the string and found a black pouch attached to it, which contained four more sachets of shabu. 12 At the NBI Office, SI Celon marked the additional four sachets of shabu.
A formal inventory of the items seized from accused-appellant was conducted witnessed by Barangay Kagawad Rogelio Talavera (Kagawad Talavera); Reysan Elloren (Elloren) of Fil Products, a member of the media; and PO2 Glenn Corsame from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). CI Celon prepared an inventory receipt of the items seized which was signed by the foregoing witnesses and Atty. Cimafranca. 13 SI Celon then brought the seized items to the Negros Oriental Philippine National Police (PNP) Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination. Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Maria Ana Rivera-Dagasdas, the forensic chemical officer at the said crime laboratory, received and examined the items submitted. The seized items were re-marked with a corresponding Specimen item. The contents of the two sachets found on accused-appellant during the initial search weighed a total of 0.10 gram. 14 While the contents of the four sachets found inside the black pouch, tucked in accused-appellant's shorts weighed a total of 0.27 grams. 15 The result of PSI Dagasdas' examination established that the marked items brought by SI Celon contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. 16 Accordingly, PSI Dagasdas issued and signed a certification to that effect.
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellant as its sole witness, which tended to establish his innocence, as follows:
According to the defense, accused-appellant was in his house lying down when Adarna called him up and told accused-appellant if he could possibly help him in buying drugs. 17 Accused-appellant let Adarna come upstairs to his house and replied that he did not indulge in drugs. 18 A few minutes later, SI Fineza entered the house, pointed his gun and escorted accused-appellant outside his house. While going down, Adarna inserted money in accused-appellant's back pocket. Thereafter, accused-appellant was bodily searched and the money inserted by Adarna in his back pocket was taken. 19 Accused-appellant was made to board a multi-cab and brought to the NBI Office. While in the vehicle, SI Fineza took a black pouch under the chair.
After arriving at the NBI Office, shabu was placed on top of the table. Afterwards, Barangay Kagawad Talavera arrived and signed something. Thereafter, a cameraman also arrived. 20
The Ruling of the RTC
In a Joint Judgment dated October 26, 2007, 21 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II and of illegal possession of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 17605, the accused Roy Saycon y Repollo is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of .10 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing 0.10 gram of shabu are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
2. In Criminal Case No. 17607, the accused Roy Saycon y Repollo is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of 0.27 gram of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00)
The four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets contained 0.27 gram of shabu are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused shall be credited with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, provided he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
SO ORDERED. 22
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed the RTC's Joint Judgment and elevated his conviction before the CA. 23
The Ruling of the CA
In a Decision dated June 24, 2013, 24 the CA upheld in toto the RTC's Joint Judgment, likewise finding that all the elements of both charges were present:
WHEREFORE, in view thereof, the appeal is DENIED. The Joint Judgment dated October 26, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 30, Dumaguete City in Criminal Case Nos. 17605 and 17607 finding accused-appellant-appellant Roy Saycon y Repollo guilty of the crimes charged is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 25
The appellate court ratiocinated that the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant as the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove the essential elements of both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 26 Also, the CA was convinced that the prosecution had properly established the unbroken chain of custody resulting in the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 27
Thereafter, accused-appellant-appellant filed his notice of appeal. 28 On October 8, 2013, the CA elevated to this Court the records of this case, 29 pursuant to its Resolution 30 dated August 23, 2013 which gave due course to the notice of appeal.
In its Resolution 31 dated November 11, 2013, this Court noted the records of the case forwarded by the CA and the parties were then ordered to file their respective supplemental briefs, should they so desire, within 30 days from notice. 32
On March 13, 2014, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation and motion 33 dated March 10, 2014 on behalf of the People of the Philippines stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief. 34 A similar Manifestation 35 dated March 24, 2014 was made by the Public Attorney's Office on behalf of accused-appellant.
Issue
WHETHER THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Discussion
As a general rule, factual findings and conclusions of the trial court and the CA are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. However, if there is any indication that the trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstances which would substantially affect the disposition of the case, this Court will not hesitate to review the same. 36
It should be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and confers upon the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from. 37 Accordingly, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 38
In all criminal cases, the presumption of innocence of an accused-appellant is a fundamental constitutional right that should be upheld at all times. 39 Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution and the accused-appellant must then be acquitted and set free should the prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. 40 Conversely, in convicting the accused-appellant, all the elements of the crime charged must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. 41
After evaluating the records of this case, this Court resolves to dismiss the appeal as accused-appellant failed to show any reversible error in the assailed CA Decision promulgated on June 24, 2013 which would warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
The Prosecution failed to establish
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 42 On the one hand, the essential elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11 are as follows: (1) the accused-appellant is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused-appellant freely and consciously possesses the said drug. 43
In prosecuting both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if doubt persists on the identity of said drugs, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. The identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the dangerous drug illegally possessed and sold is the same drug offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. 44 Accordingly, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 45
In this regard, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, established certain procedural safeguards which the police officers must strictly follow to preserve and ensure the identity and integrity of the substance seized:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/ Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drug shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused-appellant or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Under the said section, prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 10640, 46 the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, and in addition, in the presence of the following: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (3) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from confiscation for examination. 47
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. In this connection, this also means that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the conduct of the inventory of the seized items which, again, must be immediately done at the place of seizure and confiscation. 48
The Court, in People v. Tomawis49 underscored the importance of the requirement and the purpose for placing such procedural safeguards:
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and 'calling them in' to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs 'immediately after seizure and confiscation.'50 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, citation omitted)
In the present case, the buy-bust team failed to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements under Section 21, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 9165.
None of the three required witnesses was present at the time of arrest and seizure. Moreover, the buy-bust team likewise failed to take a formal inventory of the seized and confiscated drugs in the presence of the required three witnesses. As testified to by the prosecution's witness, SI Celon:
Q: You said that the sachet of shabu which was given by Saycon to Adarna which you also received from Fineza, what did you do with it?
A: Luckily, during the arrest, the back-up team was already informed then they arrived already at the scene so I had the time to mark the two sachets of shabu given to me by SI Fineza.
Q: And after making the markings, what else did you do?
A: Since the area was already almost hostile with lots of bystanders coming forward, we had decided that we had to proceed to the office. 51
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What else did you do at the NBI office?
A: I made the formal inventory.
Q: Can you please tell us if there were witnesses present during the conduct of the inventory?
A: Yes sir, before we left the area at Barangay Looc, we already informed the barangay officials and media and informed them that they have to witness the formal inventory at the office and the witness the formal inventory at the office and the witnesses were Barangay Kagawad Rogelio Talavera and Reysan Elloren from Fil Products.
Q: And having informed them, did they go to the NBI office?
A: Yes sir and also Glenn Corsame from the PDEA.
Q: When the inventory was conducted, were these persons have mentioned present?
A: Yes sir.
Q: What about the accused-appellant?
A: He was also present.
Q: Did you make a written record of the inventory that you conducted?
A: Yes sir.
Q: After conducting the inventory, can you still remember if a photograph was taken?
A: Yes sir. 52
It should be stressed that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 must be adduced. 53 Apprehending officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince this Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 54
As testified to by SI Celon, he only informed the barangay officials and the media before they left the scene where the drugs were seized and confiscated and only called them to witness the formal inventory at the NBI Office. Considering the NBI was able to conduct the buy-bust operation, which requires meticulous planning and the mobilization of its agents, it is reasonable to assume that they had sufficient time to inform the required witnesses to be present immediately after the seizure of the drugs. This they failed to do.
Furthermore, no explanation was given for the failure to secure the presence of the representative from the DOJ. From the testimony of SI Celon, he only informed Kagawad Talavera and Elloren from Fil Products. No attempt was even made to contact and call a representative from the DOJ.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have thus been compromised. Accordingly, the quantum of evidence needed to convict, that is proof beyond reasonable doubt, has not been adequately established by the prosecution, which warrants the acquittal of accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 24, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00809 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Roy Saycon y Repollo is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let entry of final judgement be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
(Zalameda, J., on official leave)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-18; penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 10-18; penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
3.Id. at 10-11.
4.Rollo, p. 4.
5.Id. at 5.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 5-6.
10.Id. at 6.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 7-8.
15.Id. at 8.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 8.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 17-18.
22. CA rollo, pp. 17-18.
23.Id. at 101-102.
24.Rollo, pp. 3-18.
25.Id. at 17-18.
26.Id. at 10-12.
27.Id. at 15.
28.Id. at 19-20.
29.Id. at 1.
30.Id. at 21.
31.Id. at 24.
32.Id.
33.Id. at 25-26.
34.Id. at 25.
35.Id. at 32-34.
36.Cacao v. People, 624 Phil. 634, 643 (2010) citing American Home Assurance Company v. Chua, 368 Phil. 555, 565 (1999).
37.People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187, 196 (2016).
38.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
39. 1987 CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 14 (2).
40.People v. Cruz, 736 Phil. 564, 580 (2014).
41.Ngo v. People, 478 Phil. 676, 680 (2004).
42.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
43.People v. Minanga, 751 Phil. 240, 248 (2015).
44.People v. Del Mundo, 818 Phil. 575, 584-585 (2017), citing People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 29-30 (2017).
45.People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
46. An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, approved on July 15, 2014. The crime subject of this case was allegedly committed before the enactment of R.A. No. 10640, or on June 3, 2005.
47.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018; People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487, 514.
48.People v. Clauedel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019.
49. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
50.Id. at 408-409.
51.Rollo, p. 15.
52.Id. at 15-16.
53.People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052 (2012).
54.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 435-436 (2018).